Saturday, October 05, 2013

Lustick Replies to Critics and I Comment

a) "to base Jewish life in the Land of
Israel on systematic coercion and permanent oppression." 1. so it is
the Land of Israel, not necessarily the State of. That's a plus; 2.
the only reason for that "coercion"/"oppression" (while not arguing it
and I disagree) is the Arab refusal to recognize any Jewish
geo-political expression anywhere, in any border configuration or
administrative form. 3. self-destruction is not in our vocabulary.

b) "the
post-1967 period did open up the spectacularly hopeful prospect of
successful partition." Maybe. The Allon Plan, the Government's 19 June
1967 decision, Dayan's functional plan, Begin's autonomy - all rejected, refused, O the Tragedy of "Palestine".

c) "Is
statist Zionism the only framework for satisfying Jewish national and
cultural ambitions?" of course. that's really pretending you don't
understand the Arabs. You do, though. So...

d) "if Germans and
Jews could be close allies within two generations
following the Holocaust, and if my own side of the Jewish world has no
problem referring to itself as “Ashkenazi” (i.e. German), then why think
a changing mix of challenges and opportunities cannot lead Jews from
Arab countries to acknowledge their heritage in a parallel fashion."
You're kidding Ian, yes? You are comparing the fundamental separatist
elements of shared history, religion, customs, culture, text-core
language, etc. as if parallel to what is required of Jess & Arabs? Wow.

e) "My point is that it is not the settlements, per se, that are the
problem, but the political constellation of power and purpose that
produced them, that grows them, and that will protect them. What I am
arguing is that the entrenchment of the forces in Israel that have
destroyed every effort to achieve two states is so deep, and so firmly
rooted in ideological, cultural, and American institutional political
realities, that much bigger forces will be necessary to transform them
than operate within the normal course of Israeli or United Nations
politics." Finally, agreement.

He adds there:

The most important message in my article was not that two states are
absolutely impossible—indeed I did not say that and do not believe it.
Rather, my argument is that paths to political decisions in Israel and
the United States that could result in that outcome via negotiations are
so implausible that the negotiations themselves end up protecting and
deepening oppressive conditions

Why "implausible"?

and

The odds were always against the two-state solution’s success, whether
because of the crippling hold that a blinkered Israel lobby has on
American foreign policy in the region, the Islamicization of politics in
the Arab world, or a cultural transformation of the Israeli political
landscape driven by decades of siege, Holocaustmania, and triumphalism.

And if Arab politics were always Islamicized but we didn't know, or want to acknowledge, that and if that has the most great affect on any possible resolution of the 'conflict'?

"Holocaustmania"?

and

... if catastrophic scales of destruction can be avoided, ways to do so
will not be found by those blinded by faith in an appealingly familiar
but no-longer-available path. Why? Because as long as Israelis (and
Palestinians) do not feel — immediately and concretely—that their very
existence is threatened by the absence of a way to live together, they
will not question the assumptions that need to be questioned.

That's a nice suggestion - threaten Israel's existence. Brilliant.

and

"Right now, for example, there is no one-state solution. But there is a
one-state outcome. Between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea
there is one and only one real state—Israel. It has shown repeatedly
that it can and will send its military forces into any corner of that
territory whenever it deems it necessary. The Palestinian Authority’s
nominal administration over some domains and Hamas’s position in Gaza
notwithstanding, virtually nothing goes into or out of this entire area
that the State of Israel does not authorize"

1 comment:

Dr. Brzezinski: Please give Mr. Begin my warm personal greetings.My visits with him have been most interesting and I have found him avery engaging and attractive person. The President very much looksforward to meeting with him. I am pleased to hear your position onResolutions 242 and 338, which, among others, set the framework foran understanding. They spell out the key issues, but that does not meanthat other issues must be excluded. At some point, this has to be understood.I would like to ask you about your policy on settlements. Therehas been some controversy on that. That seems to affect theseresolutions.Mr. Katz: There has been a difference of opinion between Likudand the Democratic Movement for Change on this. I am not sure how itwill be resolved. Mr. Begin’s attitude is closely tied to the attitude of theLikud concerning the basic right of the Jewish people to Western Palestineas a whole. This view is founded on international law, ever sincethe mandate was promulgated. The rejection of the 1947 partition bythe Arabs—and the Jewish Agency then accepted those lines—but theArab rejection in the war that followed restored the full legal basis forour claims to all of Western Palestine. From 1948 to 1967, we considerthat there was an illegal occupation of the West Bank by Jordan. This isone of the reasons that Mr. Begin objects to the term “annexation” asapplied to the territories. The question of settlements in our view doesnot affect Resolution 242. We are still prepared to negotiate withoutpreliminary preconditions.

Dr. Brzezinski: Could that include the PLO?

Mr. Katz: No, only the Arab states. In such negotiations, if we reachagreement on withdrawal, including part of the West Bank, and this ispossible even for us, although we would not do it happily, but in apeace agreement it is possible. Why should Jewish settlements, even ifJewish sovereignty is not there, constitute a problem?Why can 500,000Arabs live with us with no difficulty in the 1967 boundaries, if the ideaof Jews living elsewhere in Palestine is unacceptable? In peace, realpeace, this should not be a problem. We do not see any contradiction.Refraining from settlement would preempt the outcome of negotiations,which we want to avoid.

Dr. Brzezinski: Would you encourage settlements in areas populatedby the Arabs, as compared to the policy of the previousgovernment?

Mr. Katz: Yes, this is a subject of controversy. These have not justbeen security settlements in the past. Gush Etzion and Hebron are notsecurity settlements.2 That is not their purpose. We have a deep attachmentto the land. We hope in these negotiations that we can persuadethe Arabs that their best bet is not to have us withdraw. If I can give youthe vision that I have, after forty years of contacts with the Arabs, Iwould try to convince the Arabs in Western Palestine that their greatestchance for security and prosperity, without loss of their cultural identityand with local autonomy, lies in a unitary state under an Israeligovernment, with the right to citizenship for those who want it, or theycan remain Jordanian citizens.If an Arab entity of any kind is formed west of the Jordan River, itwould be a threat to Israel.pp. 308 - 311 Foreign Relations, 1977–1980, Volume VIII

About Me

American born, my wife and I moved to Israel in 1970. We have lived at Shiloh together with our family since 1981. I was in the Betar youth movement in the US and UK. I have worked as a political aide to Members of Knesset and a Minister during 1981-1994, lectured at the Academy for National Studies 1977-1994, was director of Israel's Media Watch 1995-2000 and currently, I work at the Menachem Begin Heritage Center in Jerusalem. I was a guest media columnist on media affairs for The Jerusalem Post, op-ed contributor to various journals and for six years had a weekly media show on Arutz 7 radio. I serve as an unofficial spokesperson for the Jewish Communities in Judea & Samaria.